Pages

Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Progressive Media: A posse ad esse (from possibility to reality)

"The era of defamation hath arrived," said the Minister.

"No my lord, ‘tis the era of the Media….," replied the journalist.

The past two weeks have seen more than one
politician resort to the aid of the judiciary against the guardians of the Fourth
estate. A lot many journalists cried foul and pleaded the right to free speech
and expression, principles embodied in the Indian Constitution. As citizens of
a free country whose side are you on? This seems to be the major dilemma these
days.

Before we can get to that it is important to
understand what really is expected from a free and responsible media.

The phrase ‘freedom of
the press’ dates back as early as the year 1644 at the height of the English
Civil war when John Milton advocated the right to the freedom of press in his celebrated speech Areopagitica,
one of history's most influential and impassioned philosophical defences in favour
of this hallowed freedom. In a Miltonian eloquence he defended this right which
has long formed the principles and today are the basis for modern justifications
of the right to free press.

Fast forward media
history to the year 1947 and we see a new sense of urgency to put it in the
words of Jo Bardoel and Leen D’Haenens. The American Press was ascribed with a new
responsibility instead of a right. Four years of concentrated discussion and
deliberation culminated into the Hutchins commission report 1947. The report
attributed the new ‘Social Responsibility theory’ to the Media.

Now, the Hutchins
Commission Report laid 5 pertinent principles on the Freedom of the Press:

·The media should provide a truthful,
comprehensive and intelligent account of the day's events in a context which
gives them meaning.

·The media should serve as a forum for
the exchange of comment and criticism.

·The media should project a
representative picture of the constituent groups in the society.

·The media should present and clarify the
goals and values of the society.

·The media should provide full access to
the day's intelligence.

This report led to a
forked theory of media responsibility where absolute liberty was pitted against
responsible freedom. The Libertarians believed that this was a form of
curtailment of freedom of the Press because for them responsibility opened the
tiny window of accountability and accountability would further pave way for
government intervention which was ‘unacceptable.’

Having given this
background we move further home to India. The freedom of press in India was
largely curtailed in the pre – independence era under the Vernacular press Act
1878. Post –Independence India perceived
a new sense of liberty and a ray of hope. The founding fathers of the Indian
Constitution wanted to ensure that by no means was a citizen to live in the
fear of punishment for expressing himself freely.

Part
III of the Indian Constitution provides for certain fundamental rights bestowed
on the citizens of the Indian Republic.

Article
19 (1)(a) reads “All citizens shall have
the righ to freedom of speech and expression”

Clearly this included
the right to the freedom of the Press as well. Questions arose much later when
it was perceived that the media was moving in a direction ad arbitrium. This of
course stepped up with the onset of the visual media and the introduction of
the internet in the country much later.

The 200th Law Commission Report on
Trial by Media under the aegis of Justice Jagannandha Rao in 2006 states:

“If
excessive publicity in the media about a suspect or an accused before trial
prejudices a fair trial or results in characterizing him as a person who had
indeed committed the crime, it amounts to undue interference with the
“administration of justice”, calling for proceedings for contempt of court against
the media.”

The report further
states the need for Journalists and the media to be ‘trained’ in certain aspects
of the law relating to the freedom of speech under Art. 19(1)(a) and the
restrictions which are permissible under Art 19(2) of the Constitution, human
rights, law of defamation and contempt.

However, the media
seems reluctant to adhere to these guidelines.

The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states:

Article 12 deals with
the person’s privacy rights and reads thus:

“No one shall be subject to
arbitrary interference

with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to

attacks upon his honour and
reputation. Everyone has the right

to protection of the law against
such interference and attacks.”

Commenting against the
high drama of the broadcast media in an article written on 18th October,
2012 entitled ‘This show is injurious to
health’ Shailaja Bajpai wrote:

“Here’s a new statutory
requirement: anyone who goes near a media interaction or press conference,
anyone who participates in a TV studio discussion, must arrange for an
ambulance to be on standby outside the premises. You never know when you might
need one.”

Such is the deduction
of the media’s own representatives.

If a politician is
expected to be accountable to the masses for his performance and his actions in
office, the media too is vested with a responsibility to be accountable for its
actions. Now it is difficult to draw up water- tight compartments so the key
question that arises is how do we demarcate the spheres of influence of the
government, the media and the public?

The Civil society was
nothing but the creation of the media. The recent reports questioning the
credibility of the members of India Against Corruption has left us with a very
important question: Is the Indian public easily swayed by sentiments? Are we
hasty decision makers when it comes to weighing the truth especially when it
involves members of the political class?

In a democracy,
progressive politics must be pursued but progressive media must be inherent.

There are three sides
of every story today: The political version, the media version and the Truth.
In the quest to get maximum TRP ratings for the channel (which I may add is not
entirely wrong!) the media tends to go ad captandum vulgus. There is absolutely
‘zero’ variety in the type of news we are exposed to. Watch BBC or CNN and you
will find special slots allotted for news related to different parts of the
world, Africa, Asia, Latin America. Compare it with the Indian television
channels. The same story being repeated, debated and re- debated like a wild
goose chase ultimately ending with a missing goose is what the audience today
is subjected to. Constructive criticism backed by at least some solution would
make do but pure criticism without solution gets the country NOWHERE.

It is not a matter of dispute
whether the Media should play an effective critique to the Government and the
Opposition but what is wrong is the fact that the media cannot simultaneously
seek to play judge and jury. As a citizen of a free country I expect to learn
the news as it ‘Is’ not what the media wants it to be. Repeating the same visual
snippets throughout the day is evidence enough of the bankruptcy of information
in the media. A skewed television debate that seems a miniature version of the
Indian Parliament with a moderator who seeks to cut off every sentence of the
panellist doesn’t get the citizen
anywhere.

These lapses could be
forgiven if the Indian media was learning independently but today when the
viewer tunes in to the news one is exposed to a bitter face-off between
panellists ranging from four to sometimes six in number trying to make
themselves heard. Paucity of time cannot be an excuse for 24/7 news channels. A
structured debate is what the audience prefers.

A typical modern day
democracy is the result of the interplay between four major mechanisms : the political
authority, the corporates and professional sector, the market and finally We
the People.

Today the scenario is
an apprehensive political class trying to make itself heard, a belligerent
media trying to make a strong statement on the day’s events and a public that
is torn between apathy towards the former and disbelief towards the latter.

No part of this article
is meant to challenge the authority of the fourth estate, However, with power
comes responsibility. In a working democracy, the media is one of the most important
functionaries but what happens when the media fails in doing justice to all
sides of the story? The public is being drilled throughout the day with one
part of the story. The rebuttals and debates form a negligible amount of primetime.
This is not to say that a political exposé is wrong. What is wrong is the media
trial that is conducted within television studios to a point when the public can
only remember the negativity that the media has quite successfully engraved in
their minds. Every political and media circuit has its fair share of
intellegentia and ignorantia.

The media proselytization has its
worst effects on the youth of our country. Ask a young person if joining politics
has crossed his mind. ‘No’ is the simple yet firm answer. Ask them why, and the
first dialogue you will hear is, “Have you seen the newspapers or are you not
having a television at home?” “Why should I dirty my hands in this political
muck?” A major reason for this is our media today is a NEGATIVE Media which is
far from inspiring young minds. It specialises in highlighting the negatives of
the government kindling strife and anger in these gullible minds.

Today’s journalists may
have a degree in journalism but why do they forget the difference between news,
opinion and comment? Why is everything so convoluted? We are unfortunately
living in an era of a performed media rather than an informed one. Not to sound
demeaning but in the quest for truth journalists and reporters sometimes get so
muddled in trivia that is irrelevant to the debate resulting in a juvenile
display of lopsided information.

However in conclusion I
must confess that today it is not only the media that is at fault. The members
of the audience too are to be blamed for this. As citizens we share the
responsibility of bringing out the positive aspects of our country. The world
is watching us. We do not live in isolation. The repercussions of what happens
within India allows for the formation of a negative international opinion of
the country as whole.

The need of the hour is
for the government, the opposition, the media and the people to work towards
building the society but not by embittering the people against the State. The
government deserves its fair share of criticism, but criticism must not culminate
into a concordia discors.

With criticism must
come appreciation. Credit must be given where due. It essential to show the
working of various policies & schemes that are helping the people. After
all no one can be 100% wrong, not even the government; a truth that may not go
down well with many readers nonetheless the fact remains.

Perhaps the easiest way
to overcome the impediments of an over- enthusiastic media is to allow them
self- regulations with guidelines. To start with why can’t prime time debates
have lesser panellists focused on the topic. This would give the audience time
to appreciate the discussion. Without a proper understanding of the issue, the
audience is unfortunately fed with only half the information. Half – knowledge is
dangerous, in politics it is fatal. The second
more important point is to have a moderator who can allow the panellists to
give their views without inhibitions. Specific time allotted to the speaker
allows the audience to enjoy the debate with a free mind. The third point which
also demands our attention is the congeniality between the debaters and the
moderator. It has oft been observed that a few panellists simply choose to
over- ride the moderator and a few media-persons who ensure that it is only
their voice that gets heard.

It would be unfair to say that there are no
worthy journalists. P Sainath tops my list of journalists par excellence.
Dedicated, committed and inspiring work that they do is laudable. We just need
more of them. It is this tribe which works on the principles aforestated in the
Hutchins report which must bloom in this thriving democracy.

An uninformed political
class, an ill -informed media and a mis- informed public is the perfect recipe
for a modern Indian social disaster. We must ensure in whatever capacity we
stand we must choose the path of reason. We are all gifted with the freedom of
choice. Just as a certain amount of sanctity is accorded to the Constitution at
another level there is a sanctity accorded to the media too.

It is with this thought
in mind that this post is written for you. Here’s hoping the media will take
cognizance of a concerned citizen.

In India the Media is at a very young age... it has become free recently.. and will mature in time..The guiding principle should be "intention". In today's India the only institutions which seem to be functioning apolitically is higher judiciary..Supreme Court is the hope and has pulled up Govt. agencies time and again..We need to strengthen the Civic Society (not necessarily led by Anna or Arvind) to keep a check on the Govt and Media.. who appear to be together..

Media is very stupid in India and instills an inferiority complex among young Indians.Indian media never talks about the infrastructure improvement happening in country,the scientific advancement of country,language development and promotion (of Hindi,our national language). Instead we Indians are told to leave language,leave our culture and follow outsiders (namely whites)like apes and monkeys. What kind of media is it that promotes english and not Hindi as it's language.Stupid and ignorant media has given rise to stupid and ignorant Indian public whining and moaning about everything that is wrong with the country but never appreciating whats right... just like our "free" media